dsm_fns is a bitmap, and it is 0-indexed according to the check in
__intel_dsm funciton. But common initialization was checking it as if it
was 1-indexed. The CL corrects the discrepancy. This change won't break
any existing calls to the function, since before the change both bits 0
and 1 were checked and needed to be set.
Signed-off-by: Daniil Lunev <[email protected]>
---
drivers/ufs/host/ufshcd-pci.c | 12 +++++++++---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/host/ufshcd-pci.c b/drivers/ufs/host/ufshcd-pci.c
index 04166bda41daa..e54a49e64acad 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/host/ufshcd-pci.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/host/ufshcd-pci.c
@@ -20,6 +20,12 @@
#include <linux/acpi.h>
#include <linux/gpio/consumer.h>
+#define __INTEL_DSM_SUPPORTED(host, fn) \
+ ((fn) < 32 && (fn) >= 0 && ((host)->dsm_fns & (1 << (fn))))
+
+#define INTEL_DSM_SUPPORTED(host, name) \
+ __INTEL_DSM_SUPPORTED(host, INTEL_DSM_##name)
+
struct ufs_host {
void (*late_init)(struct ufs_hba *hba);
};
@@ -71,7 +77,7 @@ static int __intel_dsm(struct intel_host *intel_host, struct device *dev,
static int intel_dsm(struct intel_host *intel_host, struct device *dev,
unsigned int fn, u32 *result)
{
- if (fn > 31 || !(intel_host->dsm_fns & (1 << fn)))
+ if (!__INTEL_DSM_SUPPORTED(intel_host, fn))
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
return __intel_dsm(intel_host, dev, fn, result);
@@ -300,7 +306,7 @@ static int ufs_intel_device_reset(struct ufs_hba *hba)
{
struct intel_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba);
- if (host->dsm_fns & INTEL_DSM_RESET) {
+ if (INTEL_DSM_SUPPORTED(host, RESET)) {
u32 result = 0;
int err;
@@ -342,7 +348,7 @@ static int ufs_intel_common_init(struct ufs_hba *hba)
return -ENOMEM;
ufshcd_set_variant(hba, host);
intel_dsm_init(host, hba->dev);
- if (host->dsm_fns & INTEL_DSM_RESET) {
+ if (INTEL_DSM_SUPPORTED(host, RESET)) {
if (hba->vops->device_reset)
hba->caps |= UFSHCD_CAP_DEEPSLEEP;
} else {
--
2.31.0
On 7/15/22 05:48, Daniil Lunev wrote:
> +#define __INTEL_DSM_SUPPORTED(host, fn) \
> + ((fn) < 32 && (fn) >= 0 && ((host)->dsm_fns & (1 << (fn))))
Could this macro have been implemented as a function?
Should '1 << (fn)' perhaps be changed into '1u << (fn)'?
Thanks,
Bart.